There is a very real battle of ideas playing out RIGHT NOW on Wikipedia.
It is a known Wikipedia phenomenon that competing "editors" with opposing agendas are editing and re-editing each other's entries around key terms as fast as they can type, seeking to control the very meaning of words and by extension, the tenor of the debates around them. Which goes straight at issue raised in an earlier post: how do you know whether what you are reading online is credible, when so many entries can be anonymous or can be entered under false names or aliases?
Type in "gun control" on wikipedia.org and the entry you get is topped with the following graphics:
|This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.|
Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message.
Hot button topics like "Abortion" have been hit so many times, Wikipedia no longer allow unregistered users to post, and the entry is topped with this message:
FranticIndustries's Stan Schroeder writes:
Citizendium is...a free, nonprofit encyclopedia...supervised by experts, with article-writing limited only to certified “contributors”, which are identified by their real name...
The question is whether [Citizendium] will ever achieve the critical mass of contributors to make it a resource comparable to Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s popularity isn’t due to its coverage of topics which can be found in standard encyclopedia; it’s due to those unbelievably detailed articles about computer game villains, Linux kernel versions, and other stuff you can’t find anywhere else. Citizendium will have more authority, but will it ever achieve such diversity?"